It certainly did not justify its length. Bad Guy on Top Secret Island Building Death Ray Protected By Dolts wore itself out in the 70's
Jesus didn't tell the Apostles "I will return". Or: "I'll be back", if you like The Terminator more than Bond By the way, somebody should make a fan edit of the film and replace the Armstrong song playing during the end credits with "Always look on the bright side of life"
Opens on an ugly note and never recovers. Confirms my belief that Daniel Craig is the worst Bond. These movies should be fun. There are lots of other movies with angst. Although I do like a woman in evening dress firing a machine gun and driving a '57 Chevy. I always find these elaborate prison cells amusing. Throw him in gen-pop. I don't like movies that drag kids into it for pseudo emotional effect. Thumbs down for me.
I liked it - it had most of what people expect, but it seems some don't want to see an actor playing James Bond having real-world emotions like being content (however briefly). The Craig series broke down a few stereotypes. When the character returns, we will see if it is possible to 'reboot' the series as was done when Daniel came aboard. I was glad to see that the character was on a journey, which made a change - there are no rules, after all. They certainly broke a few by getting a good actor in, who perhaps had more input than any other has had in the past.
That's the unfortunate common demoninator with all sorts of franchises. You don't change anything or push boundaries you risk not expanding the audience or renewing the audience and boring the ones you have. You change anything even slightly, you risk angering a portion of the fanbase that will go to social media and YouTube repeatedly telling the entire world how this new thing has ruined the franchise forever and risk turning off other fans and even some in the general audience who mistakenly believe the loud minority is the majority. Its often damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The franchise has lasted this long by evolving and trying new things. The issue here is that they tried to do too much and it ended up not feeling like Bond. All in one film we have Bond dying, Felix dying, Blodfeld dying, Bond having a kid, someone else taking up the 007 mantle, and M screwing everything up by making deals behind the scenes. That's way too much to work into one film and it felt like it was there for shock factor instead of in service of the story. They made a mess during the Craig era by not having a clear timeline and just making it up as they went along. The previous Bond entries could get away with that because they were loosely connected; when you're going for an arc like Craig's then you need a very precise outline. The same thing happed with the Star Wars sequels. Everyone wants to be the next Marvel but they fail to understand what made the Marvel movies work.
Great post, totally agree. I know there's a vocal contingent of Star Wars fans (and Harrison Ford) who believe Han Solo should have died at the end of Return Of The Jedi for some added gravitas. I think Lucas was wise in understanding that Vader dying was going to be enough trauma for an audience in one movie...
Whelp, I finally got to see No Time To Die this past week on blu-ray. This was only the second Bond film that I did not originally see in a theater since Live and Let Die. (My first views of OHMSS and Diamonds Are Forever were on the big screen, but somewhat later after their initial releases.) I'm not going to get too far into the main plot points, or quibble about particular quirks with the story telling, but I have to say that I enjoyed this one a lot; for me one of the better Craig films, and a top ranker over that past dozen or so Bond movies. I just found the story line fairly interesting and really got into it. Though there were a couple of things that didn't quite work for me. I couldn't follow the ultimate motive of the Safin character. If his main objective was SPECTRE, what was to gain beyond that? Was he just insane? And the whole nanobot thing was a bit farfetched for my taste, but it is a Bond film so easy to let it slide. Regarding the whole issue about the supposed death of Bond, it's interesting because the character's purported demise also crept into a couple of Fleming's novels, first at the end of From Russia With Love, and then at the close of You Only Live Twice in which Bond's obit was published in the papers. As already mentioned, this could just continue with another reboot, or the character could have survived since that isn't really definitive in the story. Anyway, I liked the movie, but then I do tend to have a certain bias towards these films.
That seems to be any thread relating to any long running franchise worth its salt. Bond, Star Trek, Star Wars etc. Anything new is garbage and an affront to all that's good and decent. Everything older (especially the stuff "I grew up with ") is without flaws and if you think otherwise you are either shilling for a large corporation or not a true fan or blind to some sjw led conspiracy to ruin everything. That's not to say everything new is good and everything old is bad. But the narrative always seems to tilt towards the newer stuff being held to a completely different standard than the older stuff, often colored by nostalgia. Usually the arguments boil down to not what something actually is or judged on its own merits, but rather what it "should " be and why it's existence retroactively ruins what came before
We watched it on Amazon Prime last weekend. There was nothing to justify the length. I had to fight to stay awake at points, and now I can barely remember what happened. I did enjoy the score which seemed to channel John Barry. The lushness of the music always made those old Bond films feel even larger and grander. I felt some of that, until I started to fall asleep.
Im' halfway through Goldfinger and man that is one casually paced film. I know expectations were different then, but so far virtually no tension and Gert Frobe looks and acts like he should be doing promos for your local Germanfest. Scary Arch Nemesis he ain't.
As time passes I find Goldfinger more realistic - a superficially boring business man full of his own importance (he can't bear to lose a golf match, so cheats) who ruthlessly pursues wealth for the sake of wealth. A true villian for the capitalist age. Its just the OTT methods that dont ring true (but are what defines a Bond movie).
I've always considered "Goldfinger" one of the best films (still do) but the last time I tried to watch it, 7 or 6 months ago, I was feeling sick and no enjoyment at all. Burnout? Probably I've watched it too many times I had a "better" time when I rewatched "Casino royale" a few days later
Goldfinger is my favorite Bond film and it's still a blast every time a watch it. I wish they could capture that tone again, which was the perfect balance of drama, humor, adventure, and spectacle.
Actually the only person who wanted Solo to die at the end of Jedi was Ford himself as he came to loathe the character as he has said . The only reason he agreed to do The Force Awakens (besides the hefty pay check) was that he finally got his wish thus also avoiding repeated attempts to try to get him back for more movies . Craig is very similar to Ford that he is a miserable grump and came to resent (as per his own words after Spectre) a role that gave him the world . Like Ford he came back for the pay check and to guarantee an outcome that he would never be asked to reprise the role again . Am glad the Craig era is over the last 2 were just awful (plots were ridiculous) Skyfall is massively overrated and drags . Quantum of Solace is actually I think quite good. Casino Royal is awesome but perhaps too long and suffers from multiple endings which is a pet hate of mine .
Craig, can be a grump, but very good actor. Casino Royale was awesome, but maybe bit long, but many Bonds are. Quantum, quite good ?! To each their own. I don't blame Ford, that franchise imo should of been long ago over, but I'm coming from a point of no interest after the original three. I think when you are in the project you feel altogether different than viewing audience, often they don't even watch these films. Star Wars gave him opportunity to be Indy which then gave him the world.
I think Craig is a terrific actor and his Bond the most realistic. He gets dirty and sweaty, he falls in love, he's aggressive instead of overly polished... He's more human and less of an almost sort of parody of what a hired killer would really be like.
I think people misunderstood how Ford felt about Star Wars. He doesn't hate the series. He's grateful for the opportunities it gave him. He just felt, (as did Larry Kasdan and Gary Kurtz by the way) that Han's role in ROTJ was perfunctory and that it was perhaps time to give the character a narrative function and have him sacrifice himself for the rebellion and his friends. George wanted a fairytale happy ever after ending even if after Han's rescue he's just basically there filling screen space and somewhat regressed to a somewhat goofy character with no real emotional payoff to his arc. Harrison felt for a long time it was a missed opportunity and pretty much felt there was no real reason to reprise Han unless his character got that emotional pay off, which is why ( along with a huge paycheck) he came back for Episode 7.
I hear your complaint re: Han's arc...but you don't think Jedi would have been too dark if Vader, the Emperor *and* everyone's favorite smuggler all bit it in the last 10 minutes? I think Lucas nailed the tone.
I'll take your word for it , as I said didn't see why there was ever more of these films. Too bad Lucas just gave up on directing , or being involved in any other projects. I can understand some of the comments about Bond , but if you don't like the reboots you'll always have the old ones to return to. After this I can't imagine who else they'll cast or what they could do that they haven't so most likely I won't bother watching any more.
I didn't say otherwise. I was speaking more from Harrison's perspective (based on interviews and stuff like the Secret History of Star Wars )Than my own. I think in the case of Han in ROTJ, I see where everyone was coming from and I'm not sure what the answer would be to keep Han alive while giving him more to do in the last act of the story to give his character kind of an end to his arc and or something satisfying to play as an actor. I wonder if they had Han be the one to lead the space battle against the Death Star II alongside Lando and let their story be their mending of fences given what occurred in Empire. Maybe it would have given Harrison more to do from an acting standpoint then to be reduced to almost a comic relief character. That had to be frustrating for Harrison to see Mark get some interesting stuff to play for his final outing as Luke and even Carrie to a lesser degree for Leia while he gets rescued from Jabba....and then thats largely it. He really doesn't get even a big hero moment in his rescue other than accidentally "killing" Boba Fett. Leia got to kill Jabba and Luke got his big moment near the end of the film. I have a feeling Harrison wanted his own big moment. Yeah he blows up the shield generator, but it was more of a team effort in aid of the big space battle above them.
